Feat: artifact adds AI Model type

[Liam-Zhao]

Thank you for contributing to Harbor!

Comprehensive Summary of your change

This pull request adds a UI display of artifact Model type, artifact-additions adds file and license display, and Model tag display

Issue being fixed

Fixed: #21229

Please indicate you've done the following:

• Well Written Title and Summary of the PR
• Label the PR as needed. "release-note/ignore-for-release, release-note/new-feature, release-note/update, release-note/enhancement, release-note/community, release-note/breaking-change, release-note/docs, release-note/infra, release-note/deprecation"
• Accepted the DCO. Commits without the DCO will delay acceptance.
• Made sure tests are passing and test coverage is added if needed.
• Considered the docs impact and opened a new docs issue or PR with docs changes if needed in website repository.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 46.42%. Comparing base (c8c11b4) to head (35de0d6).
Report is 416 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #21691      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   45.36%   46.42%   +1.05%     
==========================================
  Files         244      253       +9     
  Lines       13333    14198     +865     
  Branches     2719     2924     +205     
==========================================
+ Hits         6049     6591     +542     
- Misses       6983     7257     +274     
- Partials      301      350      +49     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	46.42% <ø> (+1.05%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

see 497 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[chlins]

lgtm

[bupd]

lgtm

[chlins]

lgtm

[wy65701436]

lgtm

[bupd]

We should remove the top error message for models with no readme or license. Since this is too much errors everytime I open an artifact with no annotations. and according to spec annotations are optional. So we should not throw an error.

Just letting it here. We possibly can create another PR once this got merged 👍

Thanks

[chlins]

We should remove the top error message for models with no readme or license. Since this is too much errors everytime I open an artifact with no annotations. and according to spec annotations are optional. So we should not throw an error.

Just letting it here. We possibly can create another PR once this got merged 👍

Thanks

@bupd Good catch! I think we can raise another PR to handle this issue, avoid making this one overly large and difficult to review.

[xuelichao]

LGTM

[Vad1mo]

@Liam-Zhao @chlins @OrlinVasilev @wy65701436 @renmaosheng

I find it very sad that we ignore easily correctable rookie mistakes with excuse to fix it later another day, which we all know will never be fulfilled...

We should remove the top error message for models with no readme or license. Since this is too much errors everytime I open an artifact with no annotations. and according to spec annotations are optional. So we should not throw an error.

Just letting it here. We possibly can create another PR once this got merged 👍

Thanks

[wy65701436]

@Liam-Zhao @chlins @OrlinVasilev @wy65701436 @renmaosheng

I find it very sad that we ignore easily correctable rookie mistakes with excuse to fix it later another day, which we all know will never be fulfilled...

We should remove the top error message for models with no readme or license. Since this is too much errors everytime I open an artifact with no annotations. and according to spec annotations are optional. So we should not throw an error.
Just letting it here. We possibly can create another PR once this got merged 👍

Thanks

We've discussed this issue both online and offline and decided to address it in a separate pull request. The current PR has become quite large, has been open for a long time, and requires frequent synchronization with the latest changes. And it has already passed review. To keep things manageable, we'll tackle the minor UI issue in its own PR.

Additionally, as we're approaching the FC stage, we can address minor issues between FC and the RC phases.

Technically, the error handling tooltip is a shared component at the product level. If we want to customize the 404 error for fetching annotations, it would be best to discuss and review this separately to ensure alignment with our overall design principles.

In my opinion, this is more of a UI-friendly enhancement and shouldn't block the PR from being merged. Would you mind creating an issue for it? We can then discuss whether we should do it and how to approach it.